<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi all, I strongly, strongly and again strongly oppose this proposal. This policy still does not take into account that resoucers can be announced and in use and all of this after beeing allocated under regular procedures and business processes. A new entrant would see his investments vanified by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012 With this policy any new LIR would be out of the market before entering it. I didn't look deeply because I have no time for family reasons now but I am pretty sure that I can find easily in the list archive that IP Transfert policies were accepted even 'cause in case of network acquisition or M&A or many other cases renumbering customers is very difficoult, and having ability to transfert resources is the most easy way to keep consistence on database. We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert country were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their allocation making them able to keep their business running! How can my new LIR company can compete in the market going to its customer stating "be aware that the assignement I giving you if I sell my company will be returned and you need to find a new LIR and renumber your network, and sorry most important... I will never be able to sell you this block or part of it but hummm yes if you go to an LIR made before 09/2012 you can have it...." End users will run far away from every new LIR choosing as default a LIR made before 09/2012. This creates barrier to ingress in the market. The full control of IP market will be in the hand of LIR (and PI holders) made before 09/2012. Barriers to ingress in the market. This is not leaving space to new entrants this is assuring control of IP market today. Again: If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. I am pretty sure that everyone here agree that this is not possibile... About 5.1. 4. plase don't don't don't state in the policy that /22 is for "transition purposes" In 2015-05 we tried to introduce ripeness stars and IPv6 deployment as a requirement for an additional /22 and at Address Policy Working Group in Copenhagen last 25/05 some of you experienced explained to me publically that we can't force old or new LIRs to deploy IPv6 and this is even the reason why the IPv6 requirement was removed from "last /8" allocation policy. Someone else said it's LIR responsability to choose how to use space... IPv6 will come....bla bla bla. You teached, I learned. At the same Address Policy Working Group well populated by experienced people commong understanding was that is better to leave things as is since "last /8" is doing its best after the 2015-01 fix came. For the above reasons and the non reached consensus we were encouraged to withdrawn 2015-05. I can't believe we are still discussing about this 2016-03. personally the only fix I would accept is to "Explicitly states that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC [...]" regards Riccardo <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 16/06/2016 15:58, Marco Schmidt ha scritto: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:E1bDXol-0001uq-25@www-apps-1.ripe.net" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Dear colleagues, The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" has been extended until 15 July 2016. The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy. The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal. Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Several restrictions have been removed - Adds a recommendation that LIRs should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for interoperability purposes You can find the full proposal at: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03</a> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net"><address-policy-wg@ripe.net></a>. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum">https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum</a> </pre> </blockquote> <div class="moz-signature">-- <pre>Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rgori@wirem.net">rgori@wirem.net</a> Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943">https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943</a> </pre> <img src="cid:part1.B6EAC5FA.99B6E29E@wirem.net" width="200"> <pre>WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@wirem.net">info@wirem.net</a> Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- </pre> </div> </body> </html>